Talk:Ship's chronometer from HMS Beagle/GA1

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

1. File:British Museum Marine Chronometer.jpg = image hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image page there checks out okay.
2. File:FalmouthObservatory2.jpg = picture on Commons and licensed as public domain, which is ideal.
3. File:EARNSHAW 509 165.jpg = hosted locally on en.wikipedia, public domain with copyright expiry in United States, so no issues here for local GA standards.

Will do stability review next.

— Cirt (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review

1. Talk page = no outstanding issues on inspection of talk page and talk page edit history back to inception.
2. Article edit history = a few concerns from 2013, however article page itself has been inactive since then with no major issues or outstanding conflicts since last edited on 17 June 2013.

Next on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of October 3, 2014, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

• NOTE: Please respond, below my entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

1. Only a few minor points that shouldn't be hard to address: I see two (2) in-line cites in the lede. But these are not needed here because the info is not controversial or contentious. Please move them to the body text itself.
2. 2nd paragraph Background sect -- paragraph is a bit large, consider breaking it up into two or more smaller paragraphs.
3. 1st and 2nd paragraphs in History sect -- paragraphs are both a bit large, consider breaking them each up into two or more smaller paragraphs. This will ease readability for the reader and editor, alike.
4. Suggest adding years in parentheses to the image captions, so the reader can see when the photographs were taken and/or when they were historically from.
5. Both Background sect and History sect = consider splitting each up into each two smaller subsects, for ease of organization and structure for reader. History would be easy, I see it goes from 1800 to present. So could divide it into two separate sub sects based on time periods.
6. Four (4) redlinks on page, totally not necessary for GA but might consider making at the very least informative contextual stubs for them:

1. Robert Molyneux (watchmaker)
2. HMS Lightning (1823)
3. Jade bi with poem
4. Early Victorian tea set

2. Factually accurate?: Duly cited throughout, no issues here. Could try standardizing the article with WP:CIT templates so all the citations are in the same uniform format -- but that may be a personal preference and not a holdup for GA.

3. Broad in coverage?: The article is indeed thorough and covers major aspects of topic.

4. Neutral point of view?: Presented in a neutrally worded tone, no issues here.

5. Article stability? Passes here, see above.

6. Images?: Passes here, see above.

NOTE: Please respond, below my entire GA Review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — Cirt (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. The information may not be controversial, but it does not appear anywhere else except in the lede. It would be unnecessary repetion to state the same thing in the body just for the sake of moving the refs. Refs in the lede is compliant with WP:LEAD
2. Done
3. Done
4. There are no historical photographs in the article so I don't think that anything is to be gained by adding dates. It would be an unusual thing to do in-article.
5. Done
6. I don't agree with creating stubs just for the sake of getting rid of redlinks. Redlinks serve the purpose of highlighting to readers that an article needs creating and may encourage someone to do so. There are lots of people running around creating ship articles and it is quite likely that one will get created eventually. Horology also attracts a lot of obsessives so the watchmaker is also a likely article to appear one day. The other two redlinks are part of a succession nav template. In my opinion a lot of the items in the 100 are never going to get articles and I would be happy to see the nav box gone (all the other useful links already appear elsewhere in the article). However, that is an issue that affects multiple articles and I'm not inclined to remove it myself without it being discussed somewhere.

On the citation templates, I don't use them, I find it easier to format manually and it makes for easier reading in the edit window with less clutter. If you can see any inconsisties then, of course, I will fix them. SpinningSpark 18:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks very much for your responsiveness, Spinningspark, much appreciated. I agree with everything you've said except that the lede should not introduce new sourced info but per WP:LEAD rather be a standalone summary of the entire article's contents. Please move the sources to the body text, and summarize it back in the lede. After that, you'll be all set for GA promotion! :) Good luck, — Cirt (talk) 18:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. SpinningSpark 16:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA

Passed as GA. My thanks to Spinningspark for being so responsive to my GA Reviewer recommendations. Excellent work overall. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]